Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

There was a problem loading this video. This could be due to a temporary network issue or the video might be unavailable.

🚨 This Should Terrify Every American Jack Smith’s newly released deposition isn’t just about Trump—it’s about you. He openly says calling the 2020 election fraudulent isn’t protected by the First Amendment. He labels political speech about an election as “fraud,” not free speech. That’s not law enforcement. That’s thought-policing.... show more

Tom Renz

356,229 subscribers

51,703 views • 6 months ago •via X (Twitter)

Comedy News & Politics

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

VIOLENCE IS NOT FREE SPEECH Laura: "Violence isn’t protected by the First Amendment. Democrats better dial this back—this isn’t the Biden administration. Trump won’t stand by while citizens are terrorized or property destroyed."

VIOLENCE IS NOT FREE SPEECH Laura: "Violence isn’t protected by the First Amendment. Democrats better dial this back—this isn’t the Biden administration. Trump won’t stand by while citizens are terrorized or property destroyed."

Laura Ingraham

131,101 views • 1 year ago

BREAKING: Jack Smith just eviscerated the Republican talking point that Trump was protected by the First Amendment when he attempted to defraud the American people. “The First Amendment does not protect speech that facilitates a crime. Speech that is used to facilitate a crime — a fraud crime in particular — is not protected under the First Amendment. The Supreme Court precedent on that is clear.”

BREAKING: Jack Smith just eviscerated the Republican talking point that Trump was protected by the First Amendment when he attempted to defraud the American people. “The First Amendment does not protect speech that facilitates a crime. Speech that is used to facilitate a crime — a fraud crime in particular — is not protected under the First Amendment. The Supreme Court precedent on that is clear.”

Ed Krassenstein

307,492 views • 5 months ago

In the United States, most of what we say online – even if it’s hate-filled or toxic – is protected by the First Amendment as free speech. But in Germany, law enforcement police the internet for hate speech. 60 Minutes, Sunday.

In the United States, most of what we say online – even if it’s hate-filled or toxic – is protected by the First Amendment as free speech. But in Germany, law enforcement police the internet for hate speech. 60 Minutes, Sunday.

60 Minutes

412,894 views • 1 year ago

Requiring proof of citizenship to vote isn’t racist. It’s common sense. The real insult is claiming certain Americans are incapable of meeting the same basic standard as everyone else. Election integrity isn’t about race. It’s about ensuring only American citizens vote in American elections. That’s exactly what the SAVE America Act does, and that’s why it should become law.

Requiring proof of citizenship to vote isn’t racist. It’s common sense. The real insult is claiming certain Americans are incapable of meeting the same basic standard as everyone else. Election integrity isn’t about race. It’s about ensuring only American citizens vote in American elections. That’s exactly what the SAVE America Act does, and that’s why it should become law.

Wesley Hunt

37,884 views • 11 days ago

Fani Willis has weaponized her office against President Trump for exercising his freedom of speech about the 2020 election. But that’s not what this is really about. This is about Democrats using their power to take down Joe Biden’s top political opponent.

Fani Willis has weaponized her office against President Trump for exercising his freedom of speech about the 2020 election. But that’s not what this is really about. This is about Democrats using their power to take down Joe Biden’s top political opponent.

Marjorie Taylor Greene 🇺🇸

447,293 views • 2 years ago

Jack Smith on if Trump's statements were free speech: He was free to say that he thought he won the election. He was even free to say, falsely, that he won the election. But what he was not free to do was violate federal law and use knowingly false statements about election fraud to target a lawful government function. That he was not allowed to do.

Jack Smith on if Trump's statements were free speech: He was free to say that he thought he won the election. He was even free to say, falsely, that he won the election. But what he was not free to do was violate federal law and use knowingly false statements about election fraud to target a lawful government function. That he was not allowed to do.

Blue Georgia

312,997 views • 6 months ago

Former Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia explains why burning the American flag is protected free speech under the First Amendment: “If I were king, I would not allow people to go about burning the American flag. However, we have a First Amendment…”

Former Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia explains why burning the American flag is protected free speech under the First Amendment: “If I were king, I would not allow people to go about burning the American flag. However, we have a First Amendment…”

Republicans against Trump

355,521 views • 10 months ago

Leftists storming churches in Minnesota and disrupting services is not the First Amendment. Churches are private property. Worship isn’t a protest zone. This isn’t speech, it’s trespassing and harassment.

Leftists storming churches in Minnesota and disrupting services is not the First Amendment. Churches are private property. Worship isn’t a protest zone. This isn’t speech, it’s trespassing and harassment.

Jeffery Mead

199,884 views • 5 months ago

Raskin: Is there a valid first amendment defense to violating the voting rights of the people and cheating the public out of a fair election? Smith: Speech that is used to facilitate a crime, a fraud crime in particular, is not protected under the first amendment.

Raskin: Is there a valid first amendment defense to violating the voting rights of the people and cheating the public out of a fair election? Smith: Speech that is used to facilitate a crime, a fraud crime in particular, is not protected under the first amendment.

Acyn

95,869 views • 5 months ago

The Message Is Clear: Shut Up or Pay Up In closing arguments, Eric Coomer’s attorney said the quiet part out loud: “We want him to quit talking.” That’s what this trial was really about, not defamation, but intimidation. They want to silence anyone who questions the narrative. From Smartmatic’s lawsuit against Fox News in 2021 to Dominion's settlements with media outlets like Newsmax, the strategy has been the same: Threaten, sue, silence. Mike Lindell didn’t back down. He kept talking about elections, about free speech, about the First Amendment. And he got sued for it. This isn’t just about Mike or MyPillow. It’s about YOU. If they can go after him for speaking, they can come after anyone. That’s what Lawfare is. That’s why this trial matters. Free speech isn’t for sale. And we’re not backing down:

The Message Is Clear: Shut Up or Pay Up In closing arguments, Eric Coomer’s attorney said the quiet part out loud: “We want him to quit talking.” That’s what this trial was really about, not defamation, but intimidation. They want to silence anyone who questions the narrative. From Smartmatic’s lawsuit against Fox News in 2021 to Dominion's settlements with media outlets like Newsmax, the strategy has been the same: Threaten, sue, silence. Mike Lindell didn’t back down. He kept talking about elections, about free speech, about the First Amendment. And he got sued for it. This isn’t just about Mike or MyPillow. It’s about YOU. If they can go after him for speaking, they can come after anyone. That’s what Lawfare is. That’s why this trial matters. Free speech isn’t for sale. And we’re not backing down:

LindellTV

82,011 views • 1 year ago

Watch Rep. Randy Fine Call For Five Years In Jail For Antisemitic Free Speech He Says "Conduct" Is Not Protected By The First Amendment & Wants Hate Speech To Be A Felony

Watch Rep. Randy Fine Call For Five Years In Jail For Antisemitic Free Speech He Says "Conduct" Is Not Protected By The First Amendment & Wants Hate Speech To Be A Felony

Alex Jones

393,175 views • 8 months ago

“It’s contrary to who we are… as a country” The FOUR big exchanges in special counsel Jack Smith’s closed-door interview about Trump election subversion

“It’s contrary to who we are… as a country” The FOUR big exchanges in special counsel Jack Smith’s closed-door interview about Trump election subversion

Scott MacFarlane

25,436 views • 6 months ago

Keith Ellison just tipped his hand — and exposed the whole game. Ellison claims the Pam Bondi letter proves this “isn’t about fraud,” “isn’t about immigration,” and “isn’t about law enforcement.” Translation: They’re PANICKING. Because it is about fraud. It is about immigration. And it absolutely is about law enforcement. When billions go missing, criminals are protected, and elections are shielded from transparency, the last thing Democrats want is federal oversight. Ellison isn’t defending Minnesotans. He’s defending a system that doesn’t want to be audited. If there’s nothing to hide — why fight this so hard?

Keith Ellison just tipped his hand — and exposed the whole game. Ellison claims the Pam Bondi letter proves this “isn’t about fraud,” “isn’t about immigration,” and “isn’t about law enforcement.” Translation: They’re PANICKING. Because it is about fraud. It is about immigration. And it absolutely is about law enforcement. When billions go missing, criminals are protected, and elections are shielded from transparency, the last thing Democrats want is federal oversight. Ellison isn’t defending Minnesotans. He’s defending a system that doesn’t want to be audited. If there’s nothing to hide — why fight this so hard?

ⁿᵉʷˢ Barron Trump 🇺🇸

280,631 views • 5 months ago

🚨Jonathan Turley unloads on Jack Smith’s theory of the case: “He’s walking through life like Jacob Marley’s ghost, carrying a chain of broken cases.” “When he was confronted on his view of free speech… he said, ‘this isn’t protected, because what Trump was saying was false.’ He equates something he views as false with fraud — and ‘that’s not the legal standard.’”

🚨Jonathan Turley unloads on Jack Smith’s theory of the case: “He’s walking through life like Jacob Marley’s ghost, carrying a chain of broken cases.” “When he was confronted on his view of free speech… he said, ‘this isn’t protected, because what Trump was saying was false.’ He equates something he views as false with fraud — and ‘that’s not the legal standard.’”

Laura Ingraham

169,005 views • 5 months ago

WEAPONIZATION: Jack Smith told Congress that Trump’s election speech wasn’t protected by the First Amendment. DOJ relied on the assumption that Trump knew the election was secure & criminalized questioning mail in voting. That’s the precedent. In sworn testimony, Jack Smith said DOJ’s case against Trump depended on treating election skepticism as criminal conduct. Smith explained prosecutors operated on the premise Trump privately believed the 2020 election was legitimate. By that logic, public claims of fraud were framed as an attempt to obstruct certification. Smith acknowledged this theory required treating challenges to mail in voting integrity as outside constitutional protection.

WEAPONIZATION: Jack Smith told Congress that Trump’s election speech wasn’t protected by the First Amendment. DOJ relied on the assumption that Trump knew the election was secure & criminalized questioning mail in voting. That’s the precedent. In sworn testimony, Jack Smith said DOJ’s case against Trump depended on treating election skepticism as criminal conduct. Smith explained prosecutors operated on the premise Trump privately believed the 2020 election was legitimate. By that logic, public claims of fraud were framed as an attempt to obstruct certification. Smith acknowledged this theory required treating challenges to mail in voting integrity as outside constitutional protection.

@amuse

110,311 views • 6 months ago

This is Preston Byrne an American Lawyer fighting for Britain's free speech rights in Washington. No one objects to banning child abuse images, it has now seeped into "political protected speech". This is a redline under America's First Amendment. Trump will react.

This is Preston Byrne an American Lawyer fighting for Britain's free speech rights in Washington. No one objects to banning child abuse images, it has now seeped into "political protected speech". This is a redline under America's First Amendment. Trump will react.

David Atherton

16,998 views • 5 months ago

The SAVE America Act isn’t about voter fraud In 64 election lawsuits about the 2020 election, NO judge found evidence of widespread fraud The Heritage Foundation found just 77 cases of noncitizens voting in 25 YEARS This is about voter suppression Senator Amy Klobuchar

The SAVE America Act isn’t about voter fraud In 64 election lawsuits about the 2020 election, NO judge found evidence of widespread fraud The Heritage Foundation found just 77 cases of noncitizens voting in 25 YEARS This is about voter suppression Senator Amy Klobuchar

Senate Democrats

17,951 views • 3 months ago

BREAKING: The Texas House just passed HB 366 — a bill that CRIMINALIZES political memes. You heard that right: 1 year in jail if your meme doesn’t have a government-approved disclaimer. This is not “election integrity.” This is an all-out war on free speech. The bill targets any altered media showing a politician doing something that “didn’t happen.” That includes satire, parody, even radio comedy. The Texas Ethics Commission will control the font, size, and color of your disclaimer. They’re literally regulating how you joke. Attorney Tony McDonald says it best: “This bill is obviously unconstitutional. It criminalizes protected speech based on content.” HB 366 turns Texas into California with cowboy boots. This isn’t about protecting voters. It’s about silencing critics. It’s about punishing political mockery. It’s about narrative control. Texas was supposed to defend liberty. Instead, it’s branding speech as criminal. Welcome to the era of compelled speech. Mock the regime? You’re now a criminal. Post your memes twice. While you still can.

BREAKING: The Texas House just passed HB 366 — a bill that CRIMINALIZES political memes. You heard that right: 1 year in jail if your meme doesn’t have a government-approved disclaimer. This is not “election integrity.” This is an all-out war on free speech. The bill targets any altered media showing a politician doing something that “didn’t happen.” That includes satire, parody, even radio comedy. The Texas Ethics Commission will control the font, size, and color of your disclaimer. They’re literally regulating how you joke. Attorney Tony McDonald says it best: “This bill is obviously unconstitutional. It criminalizes protected speech based on content.” HB 366 turns Texas into California with cowboy boots. This isn’t about protecting voters. It’s about silencing critics. It’s about punishing political mockery. It’s about narrative control. Texas was supposed to defend liberty. Instead, it’s branding speech as criminal. Welcome to the era of compelled speech. Mock the regime? You’re now a criminal. Post your memes twice. While you still can.

The Report

15,325 views • 1 year ago